card_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Current details' usefully signals a live read rather than a cached snapshot, and the 'before editing' framing implies a non-mutating operation, but there is no mention of access requirements, error behavior for unknown ids, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence beginning with the usage trigger, with zero filler. The identifier forms and the intended purpose are packed in without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return context, yet it never says roughly what 'card details' contains (name, description, due date, labels, members, etc.) or whether fields affects that. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is workable but leaves a real gap an agent must discover by calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the id/short-link/URL forms and the 'all' fields default. The description restates the identifier flexibility but adds no extra semantics such as valid field names or the cost of requesting all fields; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch the current details of one Trello card, and enumerates the accepted identifiers (id, short link, URL). It implicitly contrasts with facet-readers like card_labels or card_actions by promising the whole card, but never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when you need the current details of one card') plus the intended follow-on actions ('before editing or summarizing it'), which tells the agent this is the pre-mutation read step. It stops short of naming when to prefer the narrower sibling readers or when to use search instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.